Lorentz-invariant, retrocausal, and deterministic hidden variables (Q2286505)

This is my new review in the series of reviews on quantum theory collected in [\textit{N. de Silva} and \textit{R. S. Barbosa}, Commun. Math. Phys. 365, No. 2, 375--429 (2019; Zbl 1436.81019); \textit{F. De Lima Marquezino} et al., A primer on quantum computing. Cham: Springer (2019; Zbl 1430.81001); \textit{B. Zeng} et al., Quantum information meets quantum matter. From quantum entanglement to topological phases of many-body systems. New York, NY: Springer (2019; Zbl 1423.81010); \textit{Y. S. Teo}, Introduction to quantum-state estimation. Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific (2016; Zbl 1421.81006); \textit{A. S. Kholevo}, Математические основы квантовой информатики (Russian). Moskva: Matematicheskiĭ Institut im. V. A. Steklova, RAN (2018; Zbl 1414.81002); \textit{J. C. Baez} and \textit{J. D. Biamonte}, Quantum techniques in stochastic mechanics. Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific (2018; Zbl 1405.81005); \textit{G. Fano} and \textit{S. M. Blinder}, Twenty-first century quantum mechanics: Hilbert space to quantum computers. Mathematical methods and conceptual foundations. Cham: Springer (2017; Zbl 1377.81005)]. This one reviews the work by A. Drezet that, in turn, examines several no-go theorems by Gisin, Hardy, Conway and Kochen on the impossibility of Lorentz-invariant deterministic hidden-variable model to explain quantum non-locality. Non-locality of quantum theory (quantum non-locality) is one of the features, that, perhaps together with entanglement, most strongly clash with our `classical' pre-conceptions of how the universe does work. It was demonstrated by \textit{J. S. Bell} [Rev. Mod. Phys. 38, 447--452 (1966; Zbl 0152.23605); \textit{J. S. Bell}, Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics. With an introduction by Alain Aspect. 2nd revised ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2004; Zbl 1239.81002)] that certain entangled states are shown to violate local realism and, thus, quantum non-locality is definitely a cornerstone scientific discovery of the last century. However, the attitude to this Bell's theorem is still ambiguous and why it has been debated. These debates are mainly focused on the constraints that are imposed on the underlying hidden variables [`beables', according to Bell (see Section 19.2 of the aforementioned book) who used the word \textit{be}able to distinguish between `physical' and `non-physical' quantities] which could possibly explain quantum non-locality by means of merely a mechanical description. Among the most popular hidden-variable models is the de Broglie-Bohm pilot-wave interpretation. Notice that \textit{D. Bohm} and \textit{B. J. Hiley} [The undivided universe. London: Routledge (1995; Zbl 0990.81503)], \textit{A. Valentini} [On the pilot-wave theory of classical quantum and subquantum physics. Trieste: International School for Advanced Studies (1992)] and \textit{J. S. Bell} [Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics. With an introduction by Alain Aspect. 2nd revised ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2004; Zbl 1239.81002)] favored the view that admits a preferred space-time foliation or reference frame acting as a kind of new Aether (`sub-quantum' Aether proposed by \textit{P. A. M. Dirac} [Nature, London 169, 702 (1952; Zbl 0047.20704)]). Over the years, several scientists developed mathematical demonstration which would prohibit the existence of covariant non-local hidden variables: \textit{L. Hardy} [Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, No. 20, 2981--2984 (1992; Zbl 0969.81500); \textit{K. Berndl} and \textit{S. Goldstein}, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, No. 5, 780--781 (1994; Zbl 0973.81500)] on non-locality, \textit{J. Conway} and \textit{S. Kochen} [Found. Phys. 36, No. 10, 1441--1473 (2006; Zbl 1106.81017); Notices Am. Math. Soc. 56, No. 2, 226--232 (2009; Zbl 1157.83306)], \textit{N. Gisin} [``Impossibility of covariant deterministic nonlocal hidden-variable extension of quantum theory'', Phys. Rev. A 83, No. 2, Article ID 020102, 2 p. (2011; \url{doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.83.020102}); ``The free will theorem, stochastic quantum dynamics and true becoming in relativistic quantum physics'', Preprint, \url{arXiv:1002.1392}], and \textit{C. Blood} [``Derivation of Bell's locality condition from the relativity of simultancity'', Preprint, \url{arXiv:1005.1656}] on no-go theorems against the existence of covariant non-local deterministic or stochastic hidden variable. The latter is thoroughly discussed in the present work. The aim of the present work is to demonstrate that there exist at least one way to bypass these no-go theorems attributed to Gisin and Hardy, Conway and Kochen and to escape their conclusions, and to define a Lorentz invariant extension of deterministic hidden-variable theories like the Broglie-Bohm one. It is based on the methodology that lies behind the suggestion by Cohen and Hiley to use foliations in space-time as an active element in relativistic ontological models like relativistic Bohmian mechanics and on the pioneer work by Dürr et al. on the hypersurface of Bohmian mechanics. This different alternative is based on a foliation dependent framework adapted to deterministic hidden variables. The impact of such an approach on Bohmian mechanics is analyzed. It is demonstrated that the retrocausation (that is future influencing the past) necessarily comes out without time-loop paradox. The layout of the present paper is the following. After Introduction there goes Section 2 entitled ``Reviewing No-Go Theorems''. It begins with reviewing Hardy's condition for the Lorentz-invariance of hidden-variable theories: `For a given run of an experiment (i.e. for a given set of hidden variables), a hidden-variable theory must give the same predictions for outcomes of measurements, regardless of the frame of reference in which it is applied.' -- and continues with discussing its extension to the quantum regime, using the principle of outcome independence from later measurements (POILM) which, as Hardy explains, naturally follows from the assumption that the hidden-variable description of two systems should be disjoint when the systems are uncorrelated (i.e., when the quantum state can be written as a product). Further, this Section considers the np-go theorem by Gisin and Blood where the two atoms of an entangled pair prepared in a singlet EPR state are spacelike separated in two regions where agents Alice and Bob record their spins using Stern-Gerlach setups. As an illustration of the consequence of this no-go theorem the authors show the Bohmian description given by Bricmont of the EPR-Bell paradox. Further Sections and Appendix A explore the foliation approach. Sections 3 questions an escaping the no-go theorem with retrocausality. Section 4 develops a foliation-dependent Lorentz-invariant Bohmian mechanics and Section 5 discusses retrocausation and nonlocality in foliation dependent Bohmian mechanics. Section 6 outlines some possible generalizations, the limit of the nomological interpretation, and ends with conclusion.